...does its hardware rival top-of-the-line PCs of that time? When the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 were released, which "range" of PCs did their hardware rival at that time?

mailman2

01-13-10, 06:59 PM

...does its hardware rival top-of-the-line PCs of that time? When the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 were released, which "range" of PCs did their hardware rival at that time?

No, never. Xbox 360 was like a 3 year old PC at that time.

TheANIMAL

01-13-10, 07:20 PM

No, never. Xbox 360 was like a 3 year old PC at that time.

Not quite, i think it was closer to a year date for some components, more for others like RAM and less for others like the GPU.

For instance the 360 had an R500 based GPU - i think :o - which came out in 2005ish and the XBox itself was relased November 2005, so it wasn't too far behind then.

However i agree with the principle that consoles even at point of release can't compete with PC's.

nutcrackr

01-13-10, 07:24 PM

The 360 was a pretty good PC, remember they took losses on the hardware in the first few years (both MS and Sony). But it's not necessarily because each of the parts separately is better, in fact didn't carmack say apples to applies the power pc cpu was rubbish compared to the AMDs at the time? It's more the combination of parts, maximizing effectiveness, minimizing bottlenecks I guess.

Intel17

01-13-10, 07:44 PM

There are also other advantages; since the console is dedicated, it doesn't have a lot of the overhead that PCs have. Also, developers have a lot of low level access so they can do optimization tricks to get optimal performance out of the hardware.

That said, a top PC is usually faster, and now that we're entering an era where top end PCs use a lot more power and require more exotic coolign solutions, I doubt a console will reasonably be able to outclass a top PC nowadays.

hokeyplyr48

01-13-10, 07:48 PM

No, never. Xbox 360 was like a 3 year old PC at that time.

I'd side more with you. Consoles were never really "up to date" when they came out. The results they produce were seen on PC's for years (read 2 maybe 3).

I never understood why people defend consoles so much... They ruin games and create obnoxious children

Viral

01-13-10, 08:49 PM

On paper they can't compete with top end PC's, but in practise they are usually right up there with top end PC's of the time.

The X360's Xenos GPU was actually better in most ways than R500, it only lacked memory bandwidth for main memory. For the frame buffer it had 10MB of e-DRAM which is still faster than todays GPU's main memory.

What you can expect for future consoles is more of the same. On par with the GPU, a bit behind with CPU, more behind with memory capacity and bandwidth. I do however believe that next gen consoles will have at least 2GB of system memory, and as such, aren't going to quickly lag behind in that department simply because the need for more than 2GB of memory in 2012-2018 will be a lot less than the need for more than 512MB in 2006-2012. Because of this, the difference in texture resolution between PC and console games won't be as noticable.

On top of this, next gen consoles will definitely do 1080p hopefully with some AA. So PC's won't have the resolution advantage for most people anymore.

TheANIMAL

01-13-10, 08:54 PM

I think HUGE progress has been made with memory in the last 5 years.

12 gigs of RAM in PC's is not uncommon now, and Ram is getting hellsih fast too.

5 years ago, 4 gigs of RAM was extreme.

Also the next gen of consoles will be much more than 1080p capable.

Viral

01-13-10, 09:03 PM

Why would they use more than 1080p when there are no TV's set for release that use higher than 1080p? On top of that, it's taken long enough for Blu-Rays to actually sell at a half decent rate, why would they go higher than 1080p and have to release another standard with even smaller visual difference over the previous. The general public just wouldn't buy into it! Maybe in 2018+ when a blu-ray replacement isn't necessary since everything will likely be digitally distrubuted.

The demand for more memory has really died on the consumer side. For servers, it's still strong, but servers use registered memory and as such can use a lot more DIMMs. The fact that DDR3 is as old as it is and we still don't have 4GB DIMMs (using 2Gb chips) just shows that the demand isn't what it used to me. Why? Because the general public don't need more than 4GB.

NarcissistZero

01-13-10, 09:10 PM

It depends on the kind of PC you have, I have always had "high mid-range" gaming PCs, the best of the sensibly priced components, and when a console first comes out it generally beats my PC. The 360 did, I know that.

But I upgraded less than a year after the 360 came out and suddenly my PC was like 4 times better. The technology really leaps that fast. An absolute top of the line gaming PC would wipe the floor with the the day of release.

This is all assuming of course that the next step in consoles will be a similar upgrade, but I doubt it. There will probably be even more unique tech like the cell, some kind of CPU/GPU combo and unique memory architecture. Add on top of that the fact they will likely make a smaller leap and keep 1080p as max and focus on motion controls and you have a setup much different from the basic PC perhaps.

There really could be a wider divide coming, it will be interesting.

TheANIMAL

01-13-10, 09:11 PM

Really? I could have sworn i read somewhere that cinema resolution TV's were going to be marketed quite soon. Extreme HD and all that jazz.

NarcissistZero

01-13-10, 09:21 PM

Really? I could have sworn i read somewhere that cinema resolution TV's were going to be marketed quite soon. Extreme HD and all that jazz.

I don't see why they would do that when 1080p adoption rates are so low.

frenchy2k1

01-14-10, 01:15 PM

high refresh HDTV will be the norm way before the resolution will change.
Current HDTV are 60, 120 and 240Hz. 240 will soon be the norm, which opens correct 3D possibilities (120Hz per eye).

As far as the console/PC war, console are cheaper and a better return on gaming dollars spent. Sure, high end PCs will always beat them, but at what price? Even the PS3 came out at $600, which was considered outrageous, but this is barely a mid-range price for a gaming PC...

mojoman0

01-14-10, 01:29 PM

plus it seems it takes at least 2 years after release for the programmers to figure out all the tricks of optimizing the system and pushing it to its limits

XDanger

01-14-10, 04:24 PM

As far as the console/PC war, console are cheaper and a better return on gaming dollars spent

Show me your math

EVERYONE already has a PC!

If they add a $120 graphics card they have a gaming PC.

PC games are cheaper than console games.
------------------------------------

ive spent money on console games but never play them because consoles suck ;)
hardly a great return on money spent.

TheANIMAL

01-14-10, 05:17 PM

Show me your math

EVERYONE already has a PC!

If they add a $120 graphics card they have a gaming PC.

PC games are cheaper than console games.
------------------------------------

ive spent money on console games but never play them because consoles suck ;)
hardly a great return on money spent.

Bizzarly that actually makes sense, except for the fact that you have to upgrade your PC quite regularly unless you're smart enough to sell your old computer components off as you upgrade to new components. That isn't everyone's cup of tea, consoles certainly are easier to buy and buy for.

NarcissistZero

01-14-10, 06:26 PM

Bizzarly that actually makes sense, except for the fact that you have to upgrade your PC quite regularly unless you're smart enough to sell your old computer components off as you upgrade to new components. That isn't everyone's cup of tea, consoles certainly are easier to buy and buy for.

It depends on how high of settings you need. If you are happy with lower settings then PC gaming is likely cheaper for you, especially compared to someone who buys multiple consoles.

A hardcore console gamer who gets all consoles at launch spent $1250 on console hardware not even including accessories this gen. You can definately get a gaming PC for under that which lasts the same 5 years if you don't need max settings.

TheANIMAL

01-14-10, 06:33 PM

It depends on how high of settings you need. If you are happy with lower settings then PC gaming is likely cheaper for you, especially compared to someone who buys multiple consoles.

A hardcore console gamer who gets all consoles at launch spent $1250 on console hardware not even including accessories this gen. You can definately get a gaming PC for under that which lasts the same 5 years if you don't need max settings.

True that. My personal computer i use for internet and internet gaming is an Athlon 3200+ With 1.5gigs of DDR400 memory and a Geforce 7600GT lol.

It still plays games OK, but then again i'm into retro/indie games.

JasonPC

01-14-10, 09:19 PM

The problem with consoles and hardware is the stiff competition and the price that consumers want to pay. Xbox 360 and ps3 are both old hardware now and they still do not break even, they are sold at a loss in hope to undercut the competitor and gain market share. So considering how expensive top end PC hardware is, you'll never see it in consoles. That doesn't necessarily mean the hardware in consoles isn't cutting edge at the time. They do a lot of research and development to get what they want to achieve. It's just that what they were trying to achieve never was the equivalent to a top end PC.

ViN86

01-15-10, 12:01 AM

No fanboy posts in this thread... :rolleyes:

People play consoles cause they're easier. Period. Games are more expensive, but total hardware costs are cheaper. Everyone has a TV, spend $200 for a 360 and a game and voila, you have entertainment.

No one argues PC graphics are better. They always have been and always will be. But I would argue that consoles are much more efficient, in that they do more with less. Many console games today still have incredible graphics despite the fact that their hardware is very outdated. Case in point: Uncharted 2.

No, never. Xbox 360 was like a 3 year old PC at that time.

Really? A lot of PC's had 3-core 3.2GHz processors in 2002?

It depends on how high of settings you need. If you are happy with lower settings then PC gaming is likely cheaper for you, especially compared to someone who buys multiple consoles.

A hardcore console gamer who gets all consoles at launch spent $1250 on console hardware not even including accessories this gen. You can definately get a gaming PC for under that which lasts the same 5 years if you don't need max settings.

That's complete bull****. "Hardcore console gamer" does not mean they buy all the consoles. I would say that it just means that they get as many games as they can for their favorite console. At a $10 price difference between PC and consoles, maybe after 80 games the costs will catch up.

Anyways, you're forgetting one important aspect. Console games guarantee a certain level of performance. The same cannot be said with PC games. Try running Crysis on a 5 year old machine.

Show me your math

EVERYONE already has a PC!

If they add a $120 graphics card they have a gaming PC.

PC games are cheaper than console games.
------------------------------------

ive spent money on console games but never play them because consoles suck ;)
hardly a great return on money spent.

Seriously, you need to see the math?

Just cause you own a PC doesn't rule out its cost. Also a lot of people don't go through computers like we do (usually 2 years or less cycle). I doubt my uncle would enjoy gaming on his 1GHz Intel Celeron and 512MB of PC133 SDRAM. :lol:

NarcissistZero

01-15-10, 07:07 AM

That's complete bull****. "Hardcore console gamer" does not mean they buy all the consoles. I would say that it just means that they get as many games as they can for their favorite console. At a $10 price difference between PC and consoles, maybe after 80 games the costs will catch up.

Anyways, you're forgetting one important aspect. Console games guarantee a certain level of performance. The same cannot be said with PC games. Try running Crysis on a 5 year old machine.

I never said every hardcore console gamers buys all the consoles, I said if you are one who does... so calm down there snippy pants.

And consoles do not offer a certain level of performance really, it depends on the game makers. One game might run at 60fps like Modern Warfare while another like Borderlands might run at 20-something, as I have read. The only way to really get consistent performance from games is to have a top of the line gaming PC, which is expensive of course.

In the end I view PC gaming as seperate from console gaming, sort of an either-or situation, and in that regard console gaming is not much cheaper, or even more expensive, depending on how crazy you are with it. I know now-a-days especially a lot of people game on both, that's fine, I am just speaking from my perspective and the perspective that was more common 5 or so years ago. Actually even today that poll thread showed most people here only game on PC.

Sowk

01-15-10, 08:09 AM

I agree with Vin86, The Xbox 360's CPU was top notch (3 Cores w/ HT), Its still better then mosts CPUs today if you only have a dual core 2 Processor (E6600) or less. Its GPUs had technology that was not even out on PC. The Xbox 360 made me sell off my high-mid range PC at that time. As I was not going to use my PC for 1 year after the new console launch. I'm now back with PC again and happy about it, but to say they were 2 - 3 years behind PC is BS. They were about as powerfull as a gaming $2000+ machine in performance the day it came out (Xbox 360).

Viral

01-15-10, 09:13 AM

Is everyone forgetting that the Xbox 360 CPU is In-order Execution? That's a major disadvantage. You can't compare it to a modern triple core x86 CPU...

Ninjaman09

01-15-10, 09:32 AM

Super Nintendo ran 2d platforming games a hell of a lot better than my 486sx did, tell you what.

ViN86

01-15-10, 10:23 AM

I never said every hardcore console gamers buys all the consoles, I said if you are one who does... so calm down there snippy pants.

And consoles do not offer a certain level of performance really, it depends on the game makers. One game might run at 60fps like Modern Warfare while another like Borderlands might run at 20-something, as I have read. The only way to really get consistent performance from games is to have a top of the line gaming PC, which is expensive of course.

In the end I view PC gaming as seperate from console gaming, sort of an either-or situation, and in that regard console gaming is not much cheaper, or even more expensive, depending on how crazy you are with it. I know now-a-days especially a lot of people game on both, that's fine, I am just speaking from my perspective and the perspective that was more common 5 or so years ago. Actually even today that poll thread showed most people here only game on PC.
LOL snippy pants? Then quit spewing bull****. :p

My point was you can't compare "hardcore console gamers" with casual PC gamers. If you compare costs on PC and consoles between groups of users with similar play styles (i.e. casual to casual, hardcore to hardcore) then consoles will always be cheaper.

And yes, performance does slightly change depending on who makes the game, but the difference is that everyone who plays it experiences the same level of performance. So you can't give yourself a performance edge online by spending $1000 on your hardware. Also, all games perform at a moderate to good level of performance, while not all the same. The same still cannot be said for PC games.